Bekhorot 121

והא דתאני

And the one who says: Let them be offered up, represents the opinion of R'Simeon who says: We may cause sacred flesh to be brought to the place where the unfit [are burnt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a difference of opinion on the subject in Zeb. 75b.');">¹</span>

יקריבו רבי שמעון היא דאמר

The one who says: Let them be left to die, gives the opinion of R'Judah who says: A mistake [in counting] for tithes renders the tenth animal as a substitute;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal marked as the tenth by mistake is sacred.');">²</span>

מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול

and R'Judah further holds: That which has been made as substitute for [an animal set aside as] tithe must be allowed to perish.

והא דתני

But does R'Judah hold that that which is made a substitute for [an animal set aside as] tithe must be allowed to perish?

ימותו ר' יהודה היא דאמר

Have we not learnt: THEY SAID IN THE NAME OF R'MEIR: IF IT WERE A SUBSTITUTE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED, thus implying that R'Judah holds that it is sacrificed?

טעות מעשר תמורה הויא

And should you say that R'Meir says this in accordance with his own opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meaning thus: 'According to my view that the eleventh marked by mistake as tithe is offered up as a peace-offering, it is not a substitute, for were it a substitute it would not have been offered'. But according to R. Judah, the animal must be left to die.');">³</span>

קסבר ר' יהודה

has it not been taught: The only difference between the eleventh [called by mistake the tenth] and an actual peace-offering is that the latter confers the degree of consecration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an animal substituted for it is sacred enough to serve as an offering.');">⁴</span>

תמורת מעשר מתה

required for an offering whereas the former does not confer the degree of consecration required for an offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an animal substituted for the eleventh is not sacred enough to be offered up.');">⁵</span>

וקסבר ר' יהודה תמורת מעשר מתה

These are the words of R'Judah.

והתנן אמרו משום ר"מ

Thus it cannot effect a consecration [for another animal] to be offered up but, as far as [the animal] itself is concerned, [the eleventh called by mistake the tenth] can be offered up [according to R'Judah]!

אילו היה תמורה לא היה קרב

Moreover it has been taught: [Scripture says]: If he offer it of the herd<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 1.');">⁶</span>

מכלל דרבי יהודה סבר

this includes the eleventh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was marked the tenth.');">⁷</span>

קרב

as a peace-offering.

וכי תימא

You might think that I include also the ninth as a peace-offering.

ר"מ למאי דסבירא ליה קאמר והתניא

Against this argue thus: Does hekdesh consecrate [an unblemished animal of hullin] which comes before it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., can an offering transfer its sanctity to a substitute made for it before it itself has been consecrated? Similarly here, is it possible that the tenth which is not yet holy itself should be able to confer holiness on the ninth.');">⁸</span>

אין בין אחד עשר לשלמים אלא שזה עושה קדושה ליקרב וזה אין עושה קדושה ליקרב דברי ר' יהודה

or the one which comes after it?

קדוש ליקרב הוא דלא הוא עביד הא איהו גופיה קריב

You must admit that it consecrates only the one coming after it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eleventh which follows the tenth.');">⁹</span>

ועוד דתניא

Now whose opinion does an anonymous view in Sifra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The source of the cited Baraitha.');">¹⁰</span>

(ויקרא ג, א) אם מן הבקר לרבות אחד עשר לשלמים

represent?

יכול שאני מרבה אף התשיעי

Is it not that of R'Judah?

אמרת

And yet it says: 'If he offer of the herd' includes the eleventh as a peace-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We see therefore that R. Judah holds that the eleventh which was marked the tenth is sacrificed. How then can we explain the Baraitha above which says 'Let them be left to die' as being the opinion of R. Judah?');">¹¹</span>

וכי הקדש לפניו מקדש או לאחריו מקדש

- Rather explained R'Simeon B'R'Abba before R'Johanan: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha above which states that where the two came out together and he called the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, they are both left to die.');">¹²</span>

הוי אומר לאחריו מקדש

refers to tithing in our days<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Jewish Temple, when there cannot be any sacrifices. This explanation is not in agreement with the opinion of R. Huna above (53a) , that nowadays the law of tithing animals is not practised. (Rashi) Tosaf. observes however that although the law of tithing does not apply in our days, nevertheless, if he did tithe, the animal set aside as tithe is sacred.');">¹³</span>

סתם סיפרא מני רבי יהודה וקתני

and for fear that an offence might be committed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on account of a stumbling-block'. That he might maim it deliberately or that he might eat it without waiting for it to become blemished or he might shear it and work with it. Therefore we leave the animals to die rather then to let them pasture until they become blemished.');">¹⁴</span>

מן הבקר לרבות אחד עשר לשלמים

If this be the case, why [does the Baraitha speak of] two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he called the two animals the tenth and the eleventh the tenth.');">¹⁵</span>

אלא תרגמה ר' שמעון ברבי אבא קמיה דר' יוחנן

since the same ruling applies also to one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fear of his maiming the animal or eating it while it is unblemished applies equally to one animal, seeing that it cannot be offered nowadays. Therefore the ruling that the animal is left to die should be taught with reference even to one animal.');">¹⁶</span>

במעשר בזמן הזה עסקינן ומשום תקלה

- [The Baraitha above] gives a particularly strong instance:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'states a " not="" only"'.');"="">¹⁷</span>

אי הכי מאי איריא תרי

Not only in the case of one where there is not much loss,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the Baraitha say that we condemn it to die.');">¹⁸</span>

אפילו חד נמי

but even in the case of two lambs, where I might have said that since there is much loss we should keep them until a blemish befalls them in order to eat them, does [the Baraitha] inform us [that the ruling applies].

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא חד דלית ליה פסידא אבל תרי כיון דנפישי פסידא לישהינהו עד דניפול בהו מומא וליכלינהו קמ"ל

It has been stated: If one says to his agent: 'Go and tithe on my behalf', R'Papi in the name of Raba says: he called the ninth the tenth, it is sacred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he loses nothing thereby, as he can wait until the animal is blemished in order to eat it.');">¹⁹</span>

איתמר האומר לשלוחו

whereas if he called the eleventh the tenth, it is not sacred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is a peace-offering, he loses the breast and the right shoulder which must be given to the priest, and therefore the sender can say: 'I did not send you to cause me a loss'. We therefore maintain that the sending was void.');">²⁰</span>

צא ועשר עלי רב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר

But R'Papa in the name of Raba Says: Even if he called the ninth the tenth, it is not sacred, for he [the sender] c say to him: 'I sent you to do the right thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To benefit me.');">²¹</span>

קרא לתשיעי עשירי קדוש ולאחד עשר עשירי אינו קדוש

not to do it wrong'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To cause me a loss, having to wait for a blemish before the animal can be eaten.');">²²</span>

ורב פפא אמר

And why is this different from what we have learnt in a Mishnah: If one says to his agent: 'Go and separate terumah', he separates according to the disposition of the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he knows the owner to be a liberal person, the agent separates as terumah one part in forty, if a mean person, he separates as terumah one part in sixty and if the owner is an average person, the agent separates as terumah for him one part in fifty.');">²³</span>

אפילו קרא לתשיעי עשירי אינו קדוש דאמר ליה

If, however, he does not know the disposition of the owner, he separates the amount of terumah for an average person, one in fifty.

לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי

If he decreased the terumah by ten<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Giving one in forty, which is a liberal amount.');">²⁴</span>

ומאי שנא מהא דתנן

or increased it by ten, his terumah is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. IV, 4. Why cannot the owner say here, as R. Papa maintains above, that the one in forty which the agent separated as terumah was a mistake which caused him a loss and that therefore his agency is void?');">²⁵</span>

האומר לשלוחו צא ותרום תורם כדעת בעל הבית

- I will tell you: There [in the Mishnah] since some separate terumah liberally and others meanly, he [the agent] can say to him: 'I guessed this to be your intention';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I judged in my mind that this was the amount of terumah that you proposed separating.');">²⁶</span>

אם אינו יודע דעתו של בעל הבית תורם בבינונית אחד מנ'

but here there was a mistake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To mark the ninth animal as the tenth.');">²⁷</span>

פיחת עשרה או הוסיף עשרה תרומתו תרומה

He [the owner] can therefore say to him [the agent]: 'You should not have made a mistake'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You should have marked the certain tenth as the tenth. R. Papa therefore maintains that in every case the agency is void and thus the animal is not sacred. ');">²⁸</span>

אמרי

התם כיון דאיכא דתרים בעין יפה ואיכא דתרים בעין רעה אמר

להכי אמדתיך

הכא טעותא היא אמר

לא איבעי לך למיטעי:

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך מעשר בהמה וסליקא ליה מסכת בכורות</strong></big><br><br>